LUCKNOW VIKAS PRADHIKARAN vs Devindra Kumar

FOR the purpose of decision of this appeal we do not think it necessary to give in detail the averments of the parties. Suffice it to say that the present Appellant advertised in 1982 for allotment of residential plots under the Gomti Nagar Housing Scheme. The present respondent Devindra Kumar got himself registered for allotment of a plot in that scheme and paid Rs. 4,000/ - as registration fees. Allotment letter was issued in his favour on 15th April, 1995 allotting him one plot B -4/57, MIG Vijay Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow. He was asked to deposit the first instalment by 30th December, 1985. Price had to be paid in instalments. However, the scheme was challenged before the High Court on the ground that it was illegal. The matter went upto Supreme Court which passed the final order approving the scheme. On account of pendency of the litigation, the allottee i.e. complainant did not deposit the first instalment as well as the subsequent instalments. In the meantime, the present Appellant cancelled the allotment made in favour of the complainant -Devindra Kumar for non -payment of instalments. The complainant filed complaint before the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow which was accepted and the following direction was issued : ''We direct the opposite parties to issue notice to the complainant calling upon him to pay the instalments in respect of the plot in question by clearly indicating the dates on which each instalment become due alongwith the amount taking into consideration interest also. The amount of interest will be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum for the period between the original date of payment of respective instalment and the date now being fixed by the L.D.A. It is however clarified that the plot in question shall be supplied to the complainant at the rate prevailing on the date of allotment in favour of complainant. Since the allotment has been illegally cancelled we restore the allotment of the plot in favour of the complainant on payment of instalment as given above and as shall be payable on dates to be now intimated by the opposite party.''

FEELING aggrieved of that order the opposite party i.e. the present Appellant filed this appeal before this Commission. When the case was taken up by this Commission on 14.2.95, after hearing the Counsel for the Appellant we came to the conclusion that the order passed by the State Commission is perfectly just and fair and it would ordinarily not call for any interference. At that stage Counsel for the Appellant stated that the plot in question has already been allotted by the Appellant to some third party and its possession has also been delivered to that part) prior to the commencement of the proceedings before the State Commission. This Commission remarked that if it is so, the Appellant will have to allot some other plot of similar measurement and situation to the respondent (i.e. complainant) charging the same rate as has been demanded in respect of the original plot. The Counsel for the Appellant sought adjournment to seek instructions and this appeal was adjourned for the limiced purpose of enabling the Counsel for the Appellant to make his submission on the aforementioned point alone. On the adjourned date the Counsel for the Appellant stated that the Appellant was prepared to offer to the complainant a plot situated very near to the original plot and having the same advantages namely Plot No. B /4/35 in the same scheme and in the same Khand. On that date nobody was present on behalf of the respondent and it appeared that no intimation had been sent to him about the posting of the case. It was ordered that notice be sent to the Authorised Representative of the respondent namely Shri S.N. Lal Saxena intimating him that this case will be taken up preemptorily for final disposal on 5th April, 1995. On 5th April, 1995 the respondent did not appear but sent a letter dated 1st April, 1995 that he was confined to bed. The case was adjourned with the direction that it shall be posted preemptorily after two weeks. However, the case was posted on 27th November, 1995. On that date again nobody appeared for the respondent. It may be mentioned here that an affidavit dated 22nd March, 1995 has been filed on behalf of the Appellant to the effect that in terms of the Order of the State Commission the Appellant had allotted plot No. 4/35 in the same Khand of the same Gomti Nagar Scheme fixing the instalment as per directions of the State Commission and the allotment letter was ready. Its photo copy was attached with the affidavit as Annexure -1. In the letter dated 1st April, 1995 which was written by Shri S.N. Lai Saxena for adjournment of the case on account of his illness, he mentioned in para Nos. 1,2 and 4 as follows : ''1. That the Applicant/respondent hereby acknowledges the receipt of the kind notice of hearing. He also acknowledges the receipt of the photo stat copy of the affidavit filed by Shri Atul Kapoor on behalf of the appellant dated 22nd March, 1995 before this Honble Commission which inter alia in its para 4 states out the in terms of the order of the State Commission, plot No. 4/35 in Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar Scheme has now been allotted instead of the earlier plot No. 4/57 in the same Khand for the explained reasons. 2. That the allotment letter shall be issued to the respondent on direction by this Honble Commission. 4. That in honour of this Honble Commission and with due dignity to it, the respondent/applicant begs to submit that he will comply the order, direction, instructions or writ on the subject matter passed by this Honble Commission on the strength of the aforesaid affidavit of the appellant dated 22nd March, 1995. From the above contents of this letter it is clear that the respondent -complainant is prepared to accept the allotment of plot No. 4/35, in lieu of plot No. 4/57 in Vijayant Khand, Gomti Nagar. 4. Hence the Appellant is directed to issue an allotment letter in terms of the allotment letter photostat copy of which was filed alongwith the affidavit dated 22nd March, 1995 within two months of the receipt of the copy of this order. It may be mentioned here that in the proposed allotment letter the due date of first instalment has been given as 30th June, 1995 and of the second one on 30th September, 1995 and the third one on 31st December, 1995 and so on after every three months. The Appellant will suitably change the due dates of payment of instalments. With the above observations the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Appeal disposed of.